[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would, in general, rather see a former governor. They've got the experience of dealing with unfunded mandates, etc. They have a better grasp of what the people in the states want, I would think.
Sounds great in theory, but much of the country praises certain Governors thanks to the corrupt media. Newsom on one side, and the likes of DeSantis on the other, both of which are corrupt trash. As a Californian, I hope both of them just fade out of politics from here.
Beshear would be a great president. I've done volunteer work and met him. No matter how tired he is he never lets you know. Always humble, personable and very smart.
I get a real Bobby Kennedy vibe from him. I'd work for him again if that were to happen.
TR, Taft(technically), Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Bush II, and Clinton former governors
Harding, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Obama former members of Congress
A mixed bag of Presidents. Ignored the two non-politicians.
I don't see any correlation, at least in the 20th and 21st on which one makes a better president. I comes down to the person and the times.
Biden is obviously a pretty strong indicator that having a well connected experienced senator is a godsend for actually getting shit in congress in otherwise trying times.
See also LBJ, who you also excluded for some reason.
Otherwise yeah, pretty much. Governors tend to be comparative outsider candidates and that can bring pros and cons. Overall the presidency itself is honestly fairly irrelevant, congress (and public support by either sweeping control by one or no party) is what actually determines what gets passed, and the president is mostly just a figurehead albeit critical for shaping agendas and setting up cabinet positions and executive policy.
Worth noting that by any objective metric Nixon - further adding onto the point of being-from-congress-being-helpful-to-actually-enact-an-agenda - is technically one of the more progressive presidents we've had, but again that was *congress* and a continuation of / from the same momentum that shaped the FDR / Truman / Eisenhower / Kennedy / LBJ administrations.
Reagan was an outsider but came in with a huge and very successful political machine and agenda behind him, and was tremendously popular w/ a ton of name recognition (a la FDR) due to having been the successful governor of a huge state. Carter was an outsider and... did not.
Obama was a junior senator and had barely any political connections. Which kinda backfired heavily since as it happens a popular vote "mandate" is completely and utterly meaningless if you don't control / dominate congress. But ergo brought in Biden to help a la Bush Sr / Reagan. Bush Jr was a nepo baby but ran with the political backing of a *huge* political establishment and agenda (ie the neocon agenda to dominate the post-cold war world and above all find *some* way to invade Iraq).
Well worth noting that eg. Harris was a junior senator, but is completely useless (or hell worse than useless) w/r having any real impact or sway on congress across the aisle. Whereas Biden (and LBJ) were the opposite, due to having inhabited it for decades. Reagan successfully used his experience and connections as governor to build an impactful presidency, as did FDR who was hard carried by an *actual* popular mandate with one of the most lopsided congressional makeups in US history. But other governors again didn't have anywhere close to those benefits. And so on and so forth.
The president isn't *irrelevant* because charisma (and likeability) is everything and issues thereof can quite easily sink a political ship, but the times, crises and congressional makeup are in general far more important than anything else.
And sure, who you have "leading" your country can be "important", but the *actual* effect of this even in a crisis is next to nil. Trump didn't singlehandedly cause all US covid deaths, the 2007 GFC wasn't really Bush's (or any other president's) fault, and if anyone else had been president during WWII the results for the US / world would've probably been pretty disastrous (ditto Lincoln in 1860) but that's probably more of a rare outlier than anything else.
Well worth noting that Washington for instance was a goddamn stoic, and was probably *only* so well beloved by the founders and history because he was *so* stoic and generally non-expressive that damn near every single founder 100% projected their own politics and political ideals onto him.
A better figurehead for the revolution and early US govt you probably could not find, but probably well worth noting that those founders very well were - and probably more or less could have - operated the entire damn thing by rubber-ducking, which is by all accounts seemingly what they *were* doing most of the time with Washington.
Likewise you could probably not find a better figurehead / rubber duck for the neocon GWOT (and Bush cabinet) than Bush Jr, lol
Obama to his credit was fairly well aware that he *was* a mere figurehead - and would regularly castigate voters as such - given that his ability to actually pass anything was moot given stonewalled across-the-board-on-absolutely-everything opposition from the republican half of hyper-partisan congress.
Assuming everyone is doing their respective office proud, I'd rather promote an executive from state to national office, rather than make a legislator do the executive learning curve in the Whitehouse. But there are sucky governors, so this is a very theoretical question assuming ideal conditions.
Correlation to how “good” of a President they’d be will be HIGHLY subjective, but general instinct says Governor for the reasons you laid out.
They’re experienced being an executive, and like Congress, it entails pulling the levers of power from the executive to get your legislative agenda passed through the state house and senate. More hands-on experience assembling budgets, leading larger staffs, and making public appearances, coordinating disaster responses, dealing with Federal and State agencies, etc.
It's an overlapping spectrum where one category isn't necessarily better than another.
But generally, functionally I would say the experience as Governor is more aligned but we're talking pros and cons still.
The Presidency is an executive role and Congress is legislative. Governors are executive roles. Being a Governor, especially in a larger state, is direct experience in being the chief executive of your constituency. You set your cabinet, you rally your legislature, you take that type of responsibility.
That being said, Governors are tied to their states. Senators and Reps have experience and relationships working with the Legislature they'd actually need to work with most as President.
Optically, I don't think the average voter cares if you can sound like you can manage the pro or con of the other side.
(That also all being said, I think your question sentence depends on what you mean by 'the greatest selection of Republican candidates'. There sure were a lot of them. But that makes sense given there was no Republican incumbent (or clear presumed/strongest candidate) in 2016 and notably no eligible incumbent at all. It was going to be a totally open race. Similar to the way that 2020 was a massive field of Democratic primary candidates. The actual quality of those candidates is another question)
Governors used to be the go-to … Clinton, GW … they can often speak to tangible accomplishments, they’re used to communicating with constituents more regularly and don’t talk in overly complex senateSpeak, and they are perceived as “outsiders”, which most people prefer. (All things being equal I would also want to vote for a governor over a senator, although I’m not sure there’s a lot of logic in my preference. Arguably a senator would be more effective at actually being able to hit the ground running as, in my opinion, Biden was in 2021.)
Depends on the person. But if I had to pick, I’d say governor since they have experience in dealing with the legislature and the courts as head of the executive branch.
i agree with the others. governor mostly really depends on state on context (who).
NYC is going have some states beat on pop and how much they have to deal with problem wise. so even some mayors might be good.
I’m gonna take it in a different direction and say mayor. A mayor has to react in real time to so many different things. They need to be flexible to think on their feet. And every mayor that I’ve ever ever met really takes accountability for the people in his city.
So much of the job of Congressman and to a lesser extent governors is campaigning. I mean, even when Congress is in session, it’s only four days a week. Normally you can be a good legislator or a good leader. You can’t really be both.
I would say a governor because they are dealing with what the president would on a smaller scale. As far as foreign policy goes I think that would be on a person to person basis. I just feel like a governor has a little more experience in running a state or country with different aspects that a Congress member wouldn't.
I’d say governor because they have the experience being the executive, but congress also provides knowledge of the federal government that state governors may not have.
I think senator, due to their jobs extending to foreign policy, national domestic policy, and dealing with and navigating the chaos of congress. There’s a reason most state governors have legislative experience, either in the house or state legislatures, before becoming governor.
In this situation, with only 4 months to go, I think a Governor would make a better candidate since they already have an organization to get a campaign up & running.
Gretchen Whitmer was minority leader in the Michigan congress, and that's why she's a great governor. She knows how the legislative process works. Same goes for Biden. Trump has no clue how our government works, which was kind of good for America.
I think it’s the person, not the role. Look at Obama - a former junior senator who understood the historical importance of being the first black president. In theory, his lack of managerial oversight responsibilities that a governor would have brought should have hurt him. And yet his sense of dignity and responsibility carried the day.
I would rather we select a pool of random people from the citizenry, put them through a primer on current political issues and how the system works, then vote on a president from that pool of random people. Think of it like jury duty.
Right now our political system self selects for those seeking power, and it will always create situations like we have now. Where neither candidate represents we the people. At least with this we have a chance of getting a "Frodo" that hasn't been corrupted and jaded yet.
I think it would be helpful to have some Executive experience, like at least a mayor, and some federal congressional experience. That way the person would have some understanding about managing a government as well as how DC works. I also think it shows some commitment to public service.
Certainly we should never again elect someone who has never worked in government at all. POTUS should not be on the job training.
Dogplane3425 has some very insightful & detailed info. Unfortunately 97% of readers don't have an attention span long enough to read it.
I did. Interesting comments, particularly the less than glowing review re: George Washington. He was the only independent w/o a specific party & was vehemently against binary aka party politics stating it separated the nation, invited devisive behavior, false narrative for self gain even inviting violence and/or insurrection.
Washington was spot on.
Rankings from Presidential Scholars dating back to b4 WW2: frequently the best Washington, Lincoln, FDR. Most recently: Obama 7th Best, Biden currently @ 14th, Trump 3rd Worst. Trump was last on some of the 4 groups that rank them but averaged at the #3 spot. Bush Jr. had been 5th worst but recently was adjusted to 12th..... not sure why or how that works.
I think the emphasis of importance on the President is fully overblown. Yes a figurehead is what people seem to want, but the Founding Fathers went thru great debate whether there should even be one centra figure. Presidents that have surrounded themselves with top advisors, dedicated staffers and a diverse cabinet as has Biden has is far more to my liking that Trump's term which was all about "me Me ME & MUSICAL CHAIRS.
I am an Independent who has always voted on MERIT vs party lines.
Congress, no question. Especially a Congressperson who has been negotiating a lot of bipartisan deals (and hasn't been acting like a clown show), because that's the kind of skill that actually gets a legislative agenda passed. And one with some foreign relations experience because that's also a big part of the presidency.
I’d say senator because they have all of that federal experience, they know how to get things done in Congress, and they’re close enough to the executive branch to see how it works.
Conversely a governor comes from a totally different system. The only thing they can say is “I was a chief executive.” And they won’t be experienced with any foreign relations or national defense issues like a senator/congressman would.
Definitely “real estate developer” con man, game show host, rapist, and insurrectionist….
Kidding, no way is the above at all good for our country.
I would say that the federal government political skills would be best. The one failure of former President Obama was his failure to realize the political climate of the federal government and he gave up too much power trying to work out compromise, rather than knowing when to push stuff through, because it was the right thing to do.
Governor. A former governor an executive branch official, like the president, and is therefore used to making similar types of decisions.
Additionally, a governor has to be the governor of everyone in the state. A House member represents only their district.
In my opinion, a governor. I’d rather the top office in the executive branch belong to someone with actual experience as an executive. It also lets voters have a better idea of what their policy would look like, since they’ll have an existing record on the state level.
How about younger, non career politician for once? Someone who understands the inner workings of government, however isn't sucked into all the bullshit yet.
I agree governor also. I think a big plus, if you can get a popular governor from a purple state, not only does it give an advantage in probably picking up their home state, being a purple state, it shows them having to work with a likely split legislature in order to get things done.
Governors have better executive branch experience . Running a state is akin to a small country outside of international relations. Senators are a better choice than a congressman.
Which issues do Americans want candidates to resolve (and for the rest of Congress not to block and State governments not to hinder the implementation of)?
Most conventional wisdom would say Governor but if you look at our current president, his experience in the Senate has helped him achieve an unprecedented level of legislative success with very slim majorities so it becomes a question of what “better” means.
As long as they’re not a reality tv show host I don’t really care. There are arguments that a governor has executive experience. But on the other hand a congressperson has Washington experience that might help them work deals to actually get shit done.
This isn't something you can really apply a blanket rule to at all...
I will say that the most legislatively successful Democrat in the post-WW2 era was a long-time Senator, and that Biden, another long-time Senator, has displayed many of the same talents while in office. Knowing how Congress works appears to make a huge difference.
Obama would have likely had a less rocky start in 2009-10 if he had spent more than four years in the Senate and had a better sense of the lay of the land.
(As for some losers:) Hillary wasn't exactly Biden or LBJ, she had only been in the Senate 8 years in 2008. Gore also spent 8 years in the Senate and 8 years presiding over it as VP and definitely knew his shit on Capitol Hill. (So add that to the pile of evidence that he would've been a pretty sick-ass President and we live in the darkest timeline.) Kerry had served three terms and was buddies with everybody in the Senate of both parties, and probably would've been able to push a decent amount of very vanilla-ass neoliberal legislation through.
The last three governors who were elected got off to rocky starts. Clinton and Reagan were strongly disliked early in their presidencies, and Bush II was becoming increasingly unpopular until 9/11 (in retrospect entirely irrationally) sent his approval rating shooting through the roof.
Bush I was just some kind of weird deep state G-man guy who had served a couple token terms in the House, in addition to 8 years as VP, so he was in a pretty good position to govern out of the gate too. Couldn't time that recession, though.
Experience? Qualifications? We don’t need no experience or qualifications in a post 2016 world. Any rando will do. Preferably a failed businessman or serial grifter. How hard could the job be?
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would, in general, rather see a former governor. They've got the experience of dealing with unfunded mandates, etc. They have a better grasp of what the people in the states want, I would think.
Sounds great in theory, but much of the country praises certain Governors thanks to the corrupt media. Newsom on one side, and the likes of DeSantis on the other, both of which are corrupt trash. As a Californian, I hope both of them just fade out of politics from here.
In the middle you get ones like Beshear or Tester
Beshear would be a great president. I've done volunteer work and met him. No matter how tired he is he never lets you know. Always humble, personable and very smart. I get a real Bobby Kennedy vibe from him. I'd work for him again if that were to happen.
Tester is one of the best! Rational, measured. Midwest moderates will save this country- if we choose to let them.
Tester isn't a Governor. Did you mean Roy Cooper?
How is this any different than congresspeople?
Whitmer is right there though, a really solid option imo.
She is honestly my wish to replace Biden. It mean Michigan is essentially in the bag and she can win.
Agreed with this. They may not have experience with Congress, but they do have it with their respective state legislators.
TR, Taft(technically), Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Bush II, and Clinton former governors Harding, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Obama former members of Congress A mixed bag of Presidents. Ignored the two non-politicians. I don't see any correlation, at least in the 20th and 21st on which one makes a better president. I comes down to the person and the times.
Biden is obviously a pretty strong indicator that having a well connected experienced senator is a godsend for actually getting shit in congress in otherwise trying times. See also LBJ, who you also excluded for some reason. Otherwise yeah, pretty much. Governors tend to be comparative outsider candidates and that can bring pros and cons. Overall the presidency itself is honestly fairly irrelevant, congress (and public support by either sweeping control by one or no party) is what actually determines what gets passed, and the president is mostly just a figurehead albeit critical for shaping agendas and setting up cabinet positions and executive policy. Worth noting that by any objective metric Nixon - further adding onto the point of being-from-congress-being-helpful-to-actually-enact-an-agenda - is technically one of the more progressive presidents we've had, but again that was *congress* and a continuation of / from the same momentum that shaped the FDR / Truman / Eisenhower / Kennedy / LBJ administrations. Reagan was an outsider but came in with a huge and very successful political machine and agenda behind him, and was tremendously popular w/ a ton of name recognition (a la FDR) due to having been the successful governor of a huge state. Carter was an outsider and... did not. Obama was a junior senator and had barely any political connections. Which kinda backfired heavily since as it happens a popular vote "mandate" is completely and utterly meaningless if you don't control / dominate congress. But ergo brought in Biden to help a la Bush Sr / Reagan. Bush Jr was a nepo baby but ran with the political backing of a *huge* political establishment and agenda (ie the neocon agenda to dominate the post-cold war world and above all find *some* way to invade Iraq). Well worth noting that eg. Harris was a junior senator, but is completely useless (or hell worse than useless) w/r having any real impact or sway on congress across the aisle. Whereas Biden (and LBJ) were the opposite, due to having inhabited it for decades. Reagan successfully used his experience and connections as governor to build an impactful presidency, as did FDR who was hard carried by an *actual* popular mandate with one of the most lopsided congressional makeups in US history. But other governors again didn't have anywhere close to those benefits. And so on and so forth. The president isn't *irrelevant* because charisma (and likeability) is everything and issues thereof can quite easily sink a political ship, but the times, crises and congressional makeup are in general far more important than anything else. And sure, who you have "leading" your country can be "important", but the *actual* effect of this even in a crisis is next to nil. Trump didn't singlehandedly cause all US covid deaths, the 2007 GFC wasn't really Bush's (or any other president's) fault, and if anyone else had been president during WWII the results for the US / world would've probably been pretty disastrous (ditto Lincoln in 1860) but that's probably more of a rare outlier than anything else. Well worth noting that Washington for instance was a goddamn stoic, and was probably *only* so well beloved by the founders and history because he was *so* stoic and generally non-expressive that damn near every single founder 100% projected their own politics and political ideals onto him. A better figurehead for the revolution and early US govt you probably could not find, but probably well worth noting that those founders very well were - and probably more or less could have - operated the entire damn thing by rubber-ducking, which is by all accounts seemingly what they *were* doing most of the time with Washington. Likewise you could probably not find a better figurehead / rubber duck for the neocon GWOT (and Bush cabinet) than Bush Jr, lol Obama to his credit was fairly well aware that he *was* a mere figurehead - and would regularly castigate voters as such - given that his ability to actually pass anything was moot given stonewalled across-the-board-on-absolutely-everything opposition from the republican half of hyper-partisan congress.
LBJ = Johnson on my list.
Nobody is reading all that. Start a Substack.
Governor as President and Senator as VP is the best combo, I think. Executive experience with a Senator presiding over the Senate
> senator presiding over the senate Does it really matter that much? Like do they actually do much of anything in that capacity?
No, but they have an office in the building and can use their personal connections to lobby.
Assuming everyone is doing their respective office proud, I'd rather promote an executive from state to national office, rather than make a legislator do the executive learning curve in the Whitehouse. But there are sucky governors, so this is a very theoretical question assuming ideal conditions.
Correlation to how “good” of a President they’d be will be HIGHLY subjective, but general instinct says Governor for the reasons you laid out. They’re experienced being an executive, and like Congress, it entails pulling the levers of power from the executive to get your legislative agenda passed through the state house and senate. More hands-on experience assembling budgets, leading larger staffs, and making public appearances, coordinating disaster responses, dealing with Federal and State agencies, etc.
What do you mean ? Everyone agrees on good presidential candidates. It would never cause an issue at thanksgiving with my stupid aunt Patty.
...what do YOU mean?
I was speaking tongue in cheek, no one can ever agree on who a good candidate is. Besides Reagan apparently
It's an overlapping spectrum where one category isn't necessarily better than another. But generally, functionally I would say the experience as Governor is more aligned but we're talking pros and cons still. The Presidency is an executive role and Congress is legislative. Governors are executive roles. Being a Governor, especially in a larger state, is direct experience in being the chief executive of your constituency. You set your cabinet, you rally your legislature, you take that type of responsibility. That being said, Governors are tied to their states. Senators and Reps have experience and relationships working with the Legislature they'd actually need to work with most as President. Optically, I don't think the average voter cares if you can sound like you can manage the pro or con of the other side. (That also all being said, I think your question sentence depends on what you mean by 'the greatest selection of Republican candidates'. There sure were a lot of them. But that makes sense given there was no Republican incumbent (or clear presumed/strongest candidate) in 2016 and notably no eligible incumbent at all. It was going to be a totally open race. Similar to the way that 2020 was a massive field of Democratic primary candidates. The actual quality of those candidates is another question)
Governors used to be the go-to … Clinton, GW … they can often speak to tangible accomplishments, they’re used to communicating with constituents more regularly and don’t talk in overly complex senateSpeak, and they are perceived as “outsiders”, which most people prefer. (All things being equal I would also want to vote for a governor over a senator, although I’m not sure there’s a lot of logic in my preference. Arguably a senator would be more effective at actually being able to hit the ground running as, in my opinion, Biden was in 2021.)
Depends on the person. But if I had to pick, I’d say governor since they have experience in dealing with the legislature and the courts as head of the executive branch.
i agree with the others. governor mostly really depends on state on context (who). NYC is going have some states beat on pop and how much they have to deal with problem wise. so even some mayors might be good.
This is correct, there are mayors of cities that represent more people and diverse issues than a lot of state governors or senators.
I’m gonna take it in a different direction and say mayor. A mayor has to react in real time to so many different things. They need to be flexible to think on their feet. And every mayor that I’ve ever ever met really takes accountability for the people in his city. So much of the job of Congressman and to a lesser extent governors is campaigning. I mean, even when Congress is in session, it’s only four days a week. Normally you can be a good legislator or a good leader. You can’t really be both.
They are both obviously good preparation. But I prefer the president to have some foreign policy experience ahead of time, so I’m picking senator
I would say a governor because they are dealing with what the president would on a smaller scale. As far as foreign policy goes I think that would be on a person to person basis. I just feel like a governor has a little more experience in running a state or country with different aspects that a Congress member wouldn't.
I’d say governor because they have the experience being the executive, but congress also provides knowledge of the federal government that state governors may not have.
I think senator, due to their jobs extending to foreign policy, national domestic policy, and dealing with and navigating the chaos of congress. There’s a reason most state governors have legislative experience, either in the house or state legislatures, before becoming governor.
In this situation, with only 4 months to go, I think a Governor would make a better candidate since they already have an organization to get a campaign up & running.
Imo governor, major city mayor, and cabinet secretary are the 3 best qualifying jobs to be president.
Gretchen Whitmer was minority leader in the Michigan congress, and that's why she's a great governor. She knows how the legislative process works. Same goes for Biden. Trump has no clue how our government works, which was kind of good for America.
I think it’s the person, not the role. Look at Obama - a former junior senator who understood the historical importance of being the first black president. In theory, his lack of managerial oversight responsibilities that a governor would have brought should have hurt him. And yet his sense of dignity and responsibility carried the day.
I would rather we select a pool of random people from the citizenry, put them through a primer on current political issues and how the system works, then vote on a president from that pool of random people. Think of it like jury duty. Right now our political system self selects for those seeking power, and it will always create situations like we have now. Where neither candidate represents we the people. At least with this we have a chance of getting a "Frodo" that hasn't been corrupted and jaded yet.
I think it would be helpful to have some Executive experience, like at least a mayor, and some federal congressional experience. That way the person would have some understanding about managing a government as well as how DC works. I also think it shows some commitment to public service. Certainly we should never again elect someone who has never worked in government at all. POTUS should not be on the job training.
Dogplane3425 has some very insightful & detailed info. Unfortunately 97% of readers don't have an attention span long enough to read it. I did. Interesting comments, particularly the less than glowing review re: George Washington. He was the only independent w/o a specific party & was vehemently against binary aka party politics stating it separated the nation, invited devisive behavior, false narrative for self gain even inviting violence and/or insurrection. Washington was spot on. Rankings from Presidential Scholars dating back to b4 WW2: frequently the best Washington, Lincoln, FDR. Most recently: Obama 7th Best, Biden currently @ 14th, Trump 3rd Worst. Trump was last on some of the 4 groups that rank them but averaged at the #3 spot. Bush Jr. had been 5th worst but recently was adjusted to 12th..... not sure why or how that works. I think the emphasis of importance on the President is fully overblown. Yes a figurehead is what people seem to want, but the Founding Fathers went thru great debate whether there should even be one centra figure. Presidents that have surrounded themselves with top advisors, dedicated staffers and a diverse cabinet as has Biden has is far more to my liking that Trump's term which was all about "me Me ME & MUSICAL CHAIRS. I am an Independent who has always voted on MERIT vs party lines.
Congress, no question. Especially a Congressperson who has been negotiating a lot of bipartisan deals (and hasn't been acting like a clown show), because that's the kind of skill that actually gets a legislative agenda passed. And one with some foreign relations experience because that's also a big part of the presidency.
I’d say senator because they have all of that federal experience, they know how to get things done in Congress, and they’re close enough to the executive branch to see how it works. Conversely a governor comes from a totally different system. The only thing they can say is “I was a chief executive.” And they won’t be experienced with any foreign relations or national defense issues like a senator/congressman would.
Definitely “real estate developer” con man, game show host, rapist, and insurrectionist…. Kidding, no way is the above at all good for our country. I would say that the federal government political skills would be best. The one failure of former President Obama was his failure to realize the political climate of the federal government and he gave up too much power trying to work out compromise, rather than knowing when to push stuff through, because it was the right thing to do.
Why are we getting tons of posts about Biden’s polling and so few regarding the much more important issue of the SCOTUS’ immunity decision?
Governor. A former governor an executive branch official, like the president, and is therefore used to making similar types of decisions. Additionally, a governor has to be the governor of everyone in the state. A House member represents only their district.
In my opinion, a governor. I’d rather the top office in the executive branch belong to someone with actual experience as an executive. It also lets voters have a better idea of what their policy would look like, since they’ll have an existing record on the state level.
How about younger, non career politician for once? Someone who understands the inner workings of government, however isn't sucked into all the bullshit yet.
I agree governor also. I think a big plus, if you can get a popular governor from a purple state, not only does it give an advantage in probably picking up their home state, being a purple state, it shows them having to work with a likely split legislature in order to get things done.
Governors have better executive branch experience . Running a state is akin to a small country outside of international relations. Senators are a better choice than a congressman.
Which issues do Americans want candidates to resolve (and for the rest of Congress not to block and State governments not to hinder the implementation of)?
Most conventional wisdom would say Governor but if you look at our current president, his experience in the Senate has helped him achieve an unprecedented level of legislative success with very slim majorities so it becomes a question of what “better” means.
As long as they’re not a reality tv show host I don’t really care. There are arguments that a governor has executive experience. But on the other hand a congressperson has Washington experience that might help them work deals to actually get shit done.
This isn't something you can really apply a blanket rule to at all... I will say that the most legislatively successful Democrat in the post-WW2 era was a long-time Senator, and that Biden, another long-time Senator, has displayed many of the same talents while in office. Knowing how Congress works appears to make a huge difference. Obama would have likely had a less rocky start in 2009-10 if he had spent more than four years in the Senate and had a better sense of the lay of the land. (As for some losers:) Hillary wasn't exactly Biden or LBJ, she had only been in the Senate 8 years in 2008. Gore also spent 8 years in the Senate and 8 years presiding over it as VP and definitely knew his shit on Capitol Hill. (So add that to the pile of evidence that he would've been a pretty sick-ass President and we live in the darkest timeline.) Kerry had served three terms and was buddies with everybody in the Senate of both parties, and probably would've been able to push a decent amount of very vanilla-ass neoliberal legislation through. The last three governors who were elected got off to rocky starts. Clinton and Reagan were strongly disliked early in their presidencies, and Bush II was becoming increasingly unpopular until 9/11 (in retrospect entirely irrationally) sent his approval rating shooting through the roof. Bush I was just some kind of weird deep state G-man guy who had served a couple token terms in the House, in addition to 8 years as VP, so he was in a pretty good position to govern out of the gate too. Couldn't time that recession, though.
Experience? Qualifications? We don’t need no experience or qualifications in a post 2016 world. Any rando will do. Preferably a failed businessman or serial grifter. How hard could the job be?